Views from the Sieve

rechitski kinzhal wrote:Do you blame me?

Not at all, see the section "Who is Karl Williams?" in the interview.

I'm sure Karl Williams came across as charming too (until crossed). However, while there are parallels with Glenn Tamplin, the explanation given works too, and it is likely that NBDag's position is pretty close to correct.

Thursday 22nd and still no letters to us the members when the egm is. As dtd says tick tock tick tock! Administration beckons according to mr tamplin's unless our board get off there arses and do something. What the hell is causing the delay? Know for a fact that it is not down to the east/Goodwin consortium as the club has had there final bid including the defection for some time now.

diggerdagger1 wrote:Thursday 22nd and still no letters to us the members when the egm is. As dtd says tick tock tick tock! Administration beckons according to mr tamplin's unless our board get off there arses and do something. What the hell is causing the delay? Know for a fact that it is not down to the east/Goodwin consortium as the club has had there final bid including the defection for some time now.

Club statement from Steve Thompson on Tues 13/09/16 -
With regard to the proposed timetable for the possible restructuring of the club and new investment I am meeting with solicitors tomorrow to hopefully finalise the procedure needed to be agreed by the Full & Life Members and it is our intention to write to the Full & Life Members with these details later this week. The new Chairman hopes to be able to make a full statement to this effect later this week.
Read more at http://www.daggers.co.uk/news/article/2 ... I1TzZWu.99

Excuse my ignorance, but if whoever invests a sizeable amount of money into the club cannot sell the ground from under the club, what is the big fear?
If he/they pull out a few years down the road and the club faces money troubles, then what is the difference to now (apparently)?

Sabres......your point is?

We are now at 40 replies, the same number of responses received in the last poll, so I'm going a bit election night here.

In the first poll (and some people said this one was loaded), the question posed was "should the club sell its soul to Tamplin", there were 6 votes for Tamplin, 15 don't know need more information and 19 votes against.

The current results of 21 for Tamplin, 13 for Easts and 6 for stay as we are would suggest that those who wanted more information have all shifted to Tamplin, whilst the no vote is precisely the same but split between Easts and stay as we are.

Alan wrote:We are now at 40 replies, the same number of responses received in the last poll, so I'm going a bit election night here.

In the first poll (and some people said this one was loaded), the question posed was "should the club sell its soul to Tamplin", there were 6 votes for Tamplin, 15 don't know need more information and 19 votes against.

The current results of 21 for Tamplin, 13 for Easts and 6 for stay as we are would suggest that those who wanted more information have all shifted to Tamplin, whilst the no vote is precisely the same but split between Easts and stay as we are.

I think some of us were mostly undecided or against Tamplin a little but after hearing what he has to say, combined with the apparent need for investment, are not too stubborn to switch to supporting Tamplins investment.

Others are clearly too stubborn to even contemplate a change in opinion

And others, whilst being able to view things from both sides, still decide that Tamplin is not the best thing for our football club.

steeevooo wrote:And others, whilst being able to view things from both sides, still decide that Tamplin is not the best thing for our football club.

Some.

But still others are too busy moaning that he knows Towie members and looking for petty point scores to be rational.

I merely made the point to show the positive benefit that Tamplin has received from providing information about his proposals - and the guarantees, of course - and I still think that the way forward is for both sides to publish their business plan, which might then see further movement from one side to the other - or to/from stay aw we are.

the way forward is to get it over and done with asap.
clubs apparently is in dire straights yet we dilly on any takeover. granted this is not a 5 minute job but this has been public knowledge for months. let's get all points out to all concerned then get the vote going. or is it to hard for powers to be to organise a piss up.

Alan......I think the next communication from the club will be the final offers from both sides. The chance of seeing business plans imo is very unlikely. I also don't believe there will be a fans forum before the egm. Tamplin's revised offer is supposed to be quite good and addresses the 3 main concerns of rhe fans. Bur still say that it is very unfair that tamplin's had knowledge of the other consortiums revised bid and simply increased his bid. Still think the last offers should have been secret and dealt with by an independent person/body.

It's important to remember that 75% of the members present at an EGM will have to vote in favour of a change in the club's constitution for any change to take place
The full details of the proposed change has to be circulated personally to each eligible member well in advance of the meeting
A very high bar deliberately set up that way by the people running the club at that time
Many clubs are set up this way as Companies Limited by Guarantee
I have a feeling there is a long way to go with this
It's not a case of a simple majority voting one way or the other
Especially if there are two rival consortiums versus the status quo of staying as we are

VOR - I am not sure that's right. I had thought it was 75%, but there's nothing in the company's articles of association that requires a special resolution, nor in the companies act so far as I know, in which case 50% will do it for either side.

Alan wrote:VOR - I am not sure that's right. I had thought it was 75%, but there's nothing in the company's articles of association that requires a special resolution, nor in the companies act so far as I know, in which case 50% will do it for either side.

Your right it's majority vote as per letter recieved by members. See other thread.